That's not true. The vast majority of the time it takes to develop a new vaccine revolves around research and the necessity [of prolonged observation] to determine potential [nasty] side-effects. It is for good reason that the effects of all other vaccines ever created had to be thoroughly scrutinised for a good few years.
You have no idea of what you’re on about. All the current vaccines underwent exactly the same testing regimens as any other vaccine on the market. Nothing was skipped.
Let's not tell any lies here.
How dare you?
The fact is that the process of creation [of a NEW class of vaccine] to observation of side-effects to approval and final widespread implementation, happened [here in the UK] within about 9 months. If that in itself doesn't ring any alarm bells for you here, then I don't know what will.
Except that, unlike you, I know how that time-frame was achieved, but you dismiss it as a lie with exactly zero justification.
The thing you don’t get is that, because of the technological simplicity of mRNA vaccine tech, not only is it safer, it’s inherently quicker and cheaper to develop.
You say that we'd been researching DNA technology for several years before that, but so what?
And this is a beautiful pointer to exactly why you aren’t competent to make any sort of assessment. You can’t even recapitulate a single unambiguous sentence accurately, because this bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything I said. The difference between what I said and what you’ve presented it as is stark, and critical.
ALL ideas/inventions stand on the shoulders of previous thought/research. It doesn't detract from the fact that in late March of 2020, the UK went into lockdown because of covid, and by early December of the same year we were injecting a NEW class of vaccine into the arms of UK citizens!! Similarly, elsewhere.
It’s not a new class of anything, and there’s nothing in these vaccines that isn’t in just about everything. The ingredients are trivially in oodles of products we ingest and imbibe on a daily basis in higher amounts.
Clearly, the whole process was ultra-rushed and safety was NOT the primary concern. Indeed, if safety had been the primary concern then we would have known much more about the SHORT-term adverse effects of vaccines before they started implementing them.
We did know about them, which is exactly why administering to children was delayed until we had more data after rollout. In fact, the links to the safety data are all in the article I linked to. You’re talking bollocks again, only this time it’s genuinely dangerous bollocks. Thank fuck your only audience is people who know what an inveterate bullshitter and scientific illiterate you are.
The truth is that even the short-term effects of the vaccine were not known for at least a few months after we had already injected several million people in this country alone (and elsewhere).
Except for those pesky safety data published prior to rollout, you mean.
You’re simply lying.
Or, alternatively, the authorities-that-be knew about them but 'we' didn't until at least a few months later. I.e., they either withheld information from us or they didn't know. In either case, they were taking the piss [out of 'us'].
You have no understanding on which to base any of this, you’re simply pulling out of your arse what ‘feels’ right to you. It’s bullshit, and overlooks the fact that the safety and risk profiles were PUBLISHED prior to rollout. Those risks were a slight hump in the data showing a risk of clotting based on D dimers, and another showing risk of myocarditis. These factors have since been shown to be respectively 10 and 37 times higher from the virus.
Every ingredient of every vaccine is a known ingredient. The technology is trivially simple and, once again, you’re overlooking the simple fact that mRNA vaccines are FUNDAMENTALLY safer than conventional vaccines. The only thing different is the specific transport mechanism - a charged lipid. Now, you could make the case that ingesting a molecule of fat is harmful in the long-term, but since a Happy meal has about a gazillion times the fat content, and since the exact same type of fat molecule is also what your cell walls are made of, we can safely disregard that
Bollocks. All you're doing here is feeding certain [follow the money and power] conspiracy theories, for you more-or-less suggest that we more-or-less had the technology to create a vaccine for covid prior to it happening, so "let it rip". Are you suggesting that it is pure coincidence that the world is facing "its biggest danger since WW2" and that we just happened to have the cure for it within a handful of months after the event? FFS, have a word.
The well-poisoning fallacy isn’t an argument, and nor is the dumbfuck non-sequitur. Yes, mRNA vaccine technology was sufficiently well-developed that it could be pressed into service, and no, that still isn’t going to be quick. The tech challenges were mostly adapting for purpose and having sufficient information on the viral genome to isolate the RNA that codes for the spike protein. Because you have zero scientific literacy, it’s all just fucking magic to you, so no wonder you see it as a massive conspiracy to bluetooth enable you, or whatever dumb shit you think is going on.
Unlike you, squire, I've done my due diligence too, which in my case DEMANDED a necessity to research BOTH sides of the argument.
Except for the tiny problem that you have no fucking clue of what due diligence looks like, because you lack even rudimentary scientific competence, let alone the more sophisticated scientific literacy require to do any diligence, due or otherwise. You don’t know how to scrutinise science, as a matter of overwhelming and voluminous public record.
Such sources are low to access in quantity, since Western Civilisation has from day one more-or-less demonised and suppressed anyone from countering the status quo of getting everyone in lockdown and getting them vaccinated asap.
That speaks to your incompetence. Why? Because I don’t get my information about science from the University of fucking Youtube.
I'm guessing that you've heard of The Great Barrington Declaration? (lockdowns), which was completely overlooked/ignored/unreported, at a time when we didn't have vaccines? Why was this?!!!
Because it was economically-motivated bullshit that ran directly counter to the science?
Let's talk about it, though, because it's instructive on what it takes to achieve competence in assessing sources.
The big clue is who funded this declaration, The American Institute for Economic Research.
Jay Bhattacharya was co-author on the ridiculous Santa Clara seroprevalence study.
This study could have been written by a creationist it was so riddled with errors. Errors in basic statistics, failing correctly to read the sensitivity and specificity of their testing kits as indicated by the manufacturer of the test, miscalculations of population intervals, plugging the wrong miscalculated interval into a formula followed by multiple basic maths errors in executing the formula, and glossing over several critical calculations.
All of this led to a massive over-estimation of infection rates, which in turn led to a massive under-estimation of the lethality of the virus.
The paper was debunked up the wazoo within two or three days of it hitting the preprint server. Bhattacharya has been a proponent of the natural herd immunity experiment which underpins GBD and which has informed the UK government since the outset, and is directly responsible for Johnson's 'let it rip' attitude.
Sunetra Gupta was co-author on a similar study suggesting that 50% of the UK public had been infected, again widely criticised for modelling naïveté.
And finally, Martin Kulldorff. I don't think I need say much more than that he vaunted Sweden's approach (how's that going?0 and argued vociferously against testing asymptomatic children.
I read a critique of GBD a while back, and the opening of that critique, by David Gorski, will hit home with many hereabouts, particularly regarding the skillset involved in differentiating between sources for quality:
David Gorski wrote:When you’ve been examining pseudoscientific and quack claims for over two decades, you start to recognize patterns in the strategies and technique used by those denying science to promote their pseudoscience or quackery. Those who don’t pay attention to these sorts of issues might have been surprised by or unfamiliar with these techniques, but many skeptics were not.
In another respect, the declaration is very much like another statement made by 'scientists'. We all recall the famous 'Scientific Dissent from Darwinism' and the enormously fun 'Project Steve' that it spawned. Well, among the signatories of GBD are the pre-eminent epidemiologists 'Dr Johnny Banana' and 'Dr Person Fakename'.
So, have you actually read the declaration?
I have.
or the record, your link was interesting and did make me question my decision to not have the vaccine. I mean, I'm OPEN to having my fears about the vaccines overturned. However, ultimately your link was to a relatively ordinary immunologist's view on a very ordinary platform.
A relatively ordinary immunologist. Holy shit, it wants to play scientific-competence calculus. Let’s look at the tower of scientific intellect he wants to pit against a well-respected and well-known EXPERT in this specific field…
However, two can play at that game. For instance, do you want to hear the views of a Canadian GP with nearly three decades of experience wrt the effects a vaccine had on his own patients, whom he knew? Have a look at this (give the link several seconds to load)...
"A Canadian doctor demands further study into the link between Covid-19 vaccines and blood clots after his research found clots in a majority of vaccinated patients"
Lovely. Dismiss recognised expert in the field, vaunt somebody NOT an expert in the field, and give credence to obvious fallacies.
This is precisely what I mean when I talk about your incompetence to do due diligence. A GP is not an expert in epidemiology, he's an expert in general practice. And yes, general practice is a medical specialism and its own field of expertise, and that field is not epidemiology, virology, immunology or vaccinology.
His fallacies should be obvious to somebody like you, James, since you’ve been excoriated oodles of times for the same fallacies. His fallacies, incidentally, as the post hoc fallacy and affirming the consequent. If you dig beyond the fact that he’s a medical professional and, rather than holding him up as your faux expert-du-jour, look at what he’s actually saying and from where he derives his conclusion, you discover that the basis for his claim is… a positive D dimer.
To an ill-educated, scientifically illiterate rube, that might sound like a stick-on, because D dimers are usually formed as a result of clots breaking down. However, clots aren’t the only reason for a positive D dimer. Just the front page of google lists several causes:
D-dimer levels can be positive due to:
Pregnancy.
Liver disease.
Recent surgery or trauma.
High lipid or triglyceride levels.
Heart disease.
Being over 80 years old.
Even David Icke was kicked off youtube after being there for donkey's years. Not for spreading "misinformation" about humanity or the moon etc.., but because he questioned the status quo regarding covid and vaccines.
Even? You make it sound like he should have some sort of special status.
Also, nice bit of dog-whistling there. He didn’t question the status quo, he actively discouraged vaccination and spread dangerous disinformation. Fucking lunatic should be charged.
Disregarding issues of free speech, which we should not, the authorities have made it extremely difficult for anyone to counter their policies during this 'pandemic' to the point that anyone with a brain should be wondering what's going on.
This isn’t an issue of free speech, so spare me the wander into your understanding of civil liberties.
Harmful speech is not protected speech, nor can it be, despite the bleatings of those invoking Orwell without having the first fucking clue of what he actually thought about free speech and its limits (or, indeed, ever having read any Orwell; maybe they saw the film – Animal Farm, of course, as anything else would be well beyond them).
You're a smart bloke so I'll always review your posts, but I do not think that your views are balanced.
When it comes to science, I don’t have views, I report what’s in the literature.
You somehow believe that ALL scientists have the same views, even of NEW issues, which is bollocks.
This is trivially untrue. I’m not interested in scientists, because scientists aren’t valid authorities. There is only one valid authority in science; the data.
I construe from this that, therefore, you are driven by a specific cultural/philosophical/political agenda and are NOT open to questioning this agenda.
More well-poisoning. My agenda is sound public health policy driven by evidence.
Me, I'm open to almost anything, including the fact that the vaccines may in the long-run be the best bet. However, I know for a fact that you do not believe this is absolutely true, because I know for a fact that there is insufficient data and [free] opinion to support it as so. You're just blurting out your baaaas, like most.
Still wrong. The data are in, and they tell us that you’re talking through your rectal sphincter. Again.
Regardless, I hope that you are well.
You too.
by 
